2005.03.14
Once Upon a Time in America Part Three
Once upon a time in America the Stock Market crashed horribly. Our country went into an economic depression so bad it is simply called the Great Depression. Few people could get a job to take care of their families. Even the rich, though protected by the vast amounts of wealth they had acquired, realized that unless the situation was fixed America could fall apart. We had fought a war in Europe that was dirty and nasty. The American Midwest was swirling in dirt called the Dust Bowl. Times were bad and American moral was in the pits.
Washington stepped in to take control. Sweeping reforms were set in place and many programs started to help Americans recover and be prosperous again. Eventually we had Social Security, which insured that what ever happened you would be able to retire with something, which was better than nothing, and the Tennessee Valley Authority, which put people to work so they could send money home to feed families and make improvements on our American infrastructure.
America was beginning to see that together we could accomplish almost anything. As proof of this President Kennedy declared that within a decade an American would be walking on the moon, and we did just that. No matter how bad things might be, as long as we trust in each other and have broad trust in our government, we can accomplish what is best. For everyone.
10 Comments Categorized: life political science technology thoughts
You can follow responses with a RSS 2.0 feed or via email using the checkbox below. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
10 Responses to “Once Upon a Time in America Part Three”
- NHK says (March 15th, 2005 at 04:06:41 )
“…Social Security, which insured that what ever happened you would be able to retire with something, which was better than nothing”
Yeah, it does serve a purpose for many people; but I think participation should be optional as opposed to mandatory. At a minimum, the government should exempt you from SS contributions if you can prove you’re putting at least as much as those payments would equal into a retirement fund of your own choosing. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that you lose some or all of what you paid into SS if you die before you’re able to collect enough to break even. Seems like a sucker’s bet to me since you can’t touch the money until you’re well, already old. An IRA of any sort seems like a much better plan. That way, you control your own financial destiny *and* if you get hit by a truck at 50, you can die knowing that all that cash went to your designated beneficiary (person, charity, etc.). Or you could withdraw the money (and, of course, pay tax on it) at say, 41, should you feel the need.
“… as long as we trust in each other and have broad trust in our government, we can accomplish what is best. For everyone.”
Were you being sarcastic or do you really believe this? If the latter is true, how has your trust been earned (by the the U.S. government and the general public)? Or is it a matter of faith for you?
- NHK says (March 15th, 2005 at 04:22:44 )
I forgot to mention
Since employers pay the same amount towards employees’ SS acounts as their employees do, I think they should still be required to match funds (up to the amount they would pay into a given employee’s traditional SS acount) deposited into employees’ IRAs…thus providing one hell of a strong incentive for people to save.- dugh says (March 15th, 2005 at 10:47:15 )
NHK = Republican?
First of all, reread the very first sentence. Not that this is the whole reason why we have Social Security, but it was a contributing factor. Our economy is doing fine right now, but that’s no guarantee it will always be rosy. Remember the deficit?Anyways, private accounts is all fine and dandy. Let’s all pay in and cover our own asses. Fuck the rest. OK. I hope you make enough to take care of your parents when they can’t work anymore and run out of savings.
Of course you might die long before you have a chance to collect anything you put into the system. Well, sorry about that. Who could have known that you’d die? Not you. But what if you do live into old age? What if you reach the grand old age of 113 years?
Seriously, and in a less sarcastic tone, consider Social Security as a form of insurance. Since not everyone pays for health insurance we get tagged with higher taxes to cover their hospital bills, or pay higher insurance ourselves. As more people get old, do you want to pay even more in taxes for their old age issues like their health, their ability to eat anything, their general welfare? Cause you will.
You mention private accounts. They exist already. They are called 401Ks and in most cases with most employers they will match your contributions. This is in addition to any Social Security tax you are already paying. Mind you this is only for those of us who aren’t making a certain amount of money already. If you make above a certain cap, you don’t pay any Social Security tax. This is because they assume you will be able to handle your financial future regardless of the market. This is something that many wealthy people are afraid Bush might do; move the cap up. Then, Heaven forbid, they might have to contribute to the less wealthy, the less lucky, the people who work in their businesses and allow them to be rich in the first place.
OK, I can tell I’m starting to rant so I’ll cut this off now.
- dugh says (March 15th, 2005 at 12:00:08 )
You might look at these
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/block/nomandate
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/block/pessimism- NHK says (March 15th, 2005 at 14:50:44 )
No, I’m not a Republican, as you’re well aware
Everyone has to pay Social Security. You just “finish” each year at around 65-70K if I’m not mistaken. Income above that level isn’t taxed. Then you start paying again the next year. The employer matching that I’m proposing wouid be 100% of the employee’s total contributions, not the chump change 401k match many companies currently offer.I don’t really have a tremendous problem with mandatory retirement plans. Like I said, I’d prefer participation be optional, but whatever. I do have a problem with the government controlling exactly how and when that money is eventually parcelled out. I think people should be able to have more latitude as to how they save for their retirement—particularly when they’re being forced to do so. And I have a *huge* problem with the “insurance” aspect of the system. I already pay $200 (pre-tax) a month for health insurance. Most people I know under the age of 50 pay at least $100 a month. Were health care socialized in the U.S.A., I would have less resentment for Social Security. But it isn’t. So…if Uncle Sam wants to enroll me in his fucking mandatory pension plan, so be it. I just want every penny I paid in back plus interest. And if I croak early, then my estate should get that money.
I’m all for charity, btw. In fact, I give to charity every year. I just like to decide where that money goes and who gets how much. The U.S. treasury is certainly not my ideal proxy.
My parents are in no danger of starving to death. Ever. No thanks to Social Security. But thanks for asking.
Hey…you never answered my question, damnit!
- dugh says (March 16th, 2005 at 07:33:18 )
Question?
I’ll assume the question you mean is how I can trust government, or how has it earned my trust. The answer to that is that, by law, our government changes over time. I do not trust the current government but I have trusted others and I’ll trust ones in the future, I’m sure. As for the general population, I don’t really trust it, but that’s why I vote and that’s why I speak up.As for the idea of private accounts or detirmining for yourself where your money goes I am firmly against it. Being for it smacks loudly of “Me Me Me, and go fuck yourselves.” I don’t mind the sentiment, and in many cases agree with it, but it is this narrow vision that prevents us, as a society and as a culture, from getting any better. If you are gay, how do you expect to ever get married if others don’t start getting involved in your situation? Black folk didn’t get the right to vote because they said fuck you all, give us our due. Some did, sure, but in the end it took a whole lot of white people joining them, taking up this moral issue and finding a solution.
Social Security is similar. It is insurance that everyone will have something. Sure some people will never collect and some long-lived people will collect more than they put in, but in the end it will all balance itself. And if you want to help your retirement along, start up your own 401K and have that much more for your future.
We live in a community. You can view this as just a bunch of friends, as the people in your city, your state, or your country. At all levels it is community and when one part suffers, in the end you will suffer too, unless you’re filthy rich in which case you should, morally, still care. Rich people are not known for their morals, however.
There is little guaruntee against the shit hitting the fan, whether you’re rich or poor. Social Security is at least something, and if Bush has his way it will be worse than nothing because the only people who will really make any money will be the stock brokers who handle your accounts.
- Uncle Roger says (March 16th, 2005 at 10:55:45 )
Zero
Okay, so let’s say instead of putting my retirement into social security, I put it in a retirement fund of my choice. And let’s say it does as well as my investments in the stock market (from 1,000 to nothing in no time). Or even simply as good as the “conservative” fund that Wells Fargo recommended for an IRA. That one only went from $4K to $3.4K. So what happens when I turn 65 and have nothing? Are you going to share your retirement fund with me, pay increased taxes to let the government help me out, or let me starve and freeze on the streets?
On the other hand, let’s say you and I both manage to save X dollars for retirement, enough to last us 30 years. We both retire at 65. Like my father before me, I die at 75. You, on the other hand, due to clean living and regular strong morals, live to be 105. My heirs will do okay, because they get the money I didn’t use. Yours, on the other hand, will have to support you for the last 10 years of your life. If you’re lucky.
Funny, it sure seems like I said this before. 8^)
- NHK says (March 16th, 2005 at 13:17:13 )
First off: I don’t want anyone to starve to death. I do feel I could do a better job than the government of investing the money I’m *forced* to set aside. And I’d like the opportunity to do so. Granted, there is risk involved, just as when I transact with my stockbroker. And there are plenty of people who don’t realistically have resources to gamble with. So maybe they shouldn’t gamble? That’s not for me to say. And, in my opinion, nor is it the government’s place to do so. I think people should have more control over their retirement accounts not soley because of my own greedy agenda, but because, well, they earned it in the first place. Okay, maybe the half the employer pays could be invested traditionally and the employee could have an option to play the other “paycheck-visible” half as they see fit? Bugger all. I’ll leave that to those of you who find economics exciting (yawn) to debate.
That aside, my problem (in theory) is this:
Scenario one…
NHK is a bitter shithead who unwittingly sentences legions of grannies to a slow, wasting death so that he can buy a few hundred shares of Omnimedia (why-oh-why didn’t I jump on that boat a year ago!?). Well, that’s no good because, you see, I’m really not that callous. And I’d feel bad. And everyone would see that I had an icy heart. And then no one would love me. Sad.Scenario two…
NHK pays his Social Security until he turns 50, finds love, but then dies a horrible death from The Lung Cancer. Many fat, jolly grannies attend his funeral, but still he’s bitter about all that goddamn LOST RETIREMENT MONEY. See, my heart may not actually be icy, but I can still freaking well add and subtract. And the damn private room in the cancer ward is outrageously expensive.Third scenario…
NHK is elected King of The United States and sells all the cool states to Canada before abdicating. Everyone now has access to Health Canada, plentiful hockey, and snow. The world is an infinitely better place because of me. Okay, that won’t happen; but scenarios one and two sucked and Dugh brought up the Gay rights issue, which got me thinking about Canada, and—Anyway, my position isn’t so much, “I want all my fucking cake and ice cream, and I’ll eat it til I hurl and then eat more, and you will get NONE!” Rather, you have to give me *some* ice cream. I won’t insist on the cake, since I only kind of like cake; but I really, really love ice cream. Let me explain: I should have been more clear in regard to my health insurance reference. If you look at National Insurance in the UK, you’ll find that the scheme allows for access to health and dental care; unemployment, disability, and maternity benefits; needy child something-or-other benefits; *and* retirement funds. So let’s say I file an unemployment claim, get pregnant, have a kid, then get fatally struck by lightening at 45. No retirement pay for me, but I would have gotten a few scoops of ice cream. Fine. No big deal. I would have gotten something substantial from the program when I most needed it and I wouldn’t have had to pay separate premiums for benefits other than retirement. Granted, NI payments are high (I know. I’ve worked in the UK), but not outrageous for what they cover—particularly when you realize that you will not be docked for additional health, dental, disability or unemployment coverage. NI, in my mind, is simply far more equitable than Social Security. Everyone pays (I don’t think there’s a cap) and everyone gets some appreciable benefit. The UK is, of course, only one of many industrialized nations with such comprehensive social programs. I use it as an example because it is the one with which I’m most familiar. I’d really like to see something like NI supplant Social Security in the U.S. But then, I’d also like a cook and a chauffeur. There are, in fact, lots of things I’d like to see come to pass that won’t be happening anytime soon.
So, in my own mind, I’m more of a closet socialist than a pseudo-nazi Republican. But everyone has to make their own judgments.
Sorry if I’m being flippant, but this whole thread was becoming a bit heavy and dour for my liking.
P.S.: Dugh, it is often equally important to both band together as a community *and* demand one’s due. Losing sight of the need for either tactic can be detrimental.
- Uncle Roger says (March 17th, 2005 at 05:13:52 )
Insurance
If you think you can do better than the government at investing for the future, go for it. Meanwhile, look at Social Security this way — it’s a big insurance policy to make sure no one goes hungry. You can contribute to social security or you can pay taxes for more programs for seniors. same-same.
You don’t have to rely on Social Security at all. In fact, if you make more than a certain amount, you’re not expected to rely on it fully. You’re expected to be putting some of that excess income away yourself.
I agree that the NI sounds pretty cool, and I’d much rather pay into something like that than just Social Security, but that’s not the same as everyone pulling out and leaving others to fend for themselves. Remember, this isn’t Individual Security, it’s Social Security. It’s a team effort; we’re all in this together.
And Canada is very tempting; more so since last November. Vancouver is on my short list of places I’d be willing to live if I couldn’t live in San Francisco. Ottawa would be too, except it’s freaking cold in the winter.
btw, Social Security also includes disability insurance and survivors’ benefits. From the page at [http://www.ssa.gov/kids/kids.htm] (for simplicity’s sake):
“People work and give a little money to Social Security. When some people get so sick that they can’t work they get money from Social Security. When people get older and don’t work anymore, they can get money from Social Security. When people die, their family can get money from Social Security.“
- NHK says (March 17th, 2005 at 05:43:20 )
Yup. Vancouver is a freakin’ blast. I try and get up there once a year to go hiking up Grouse Mountain. There’s a particular trail known as “The Grouse Grind” that I’m fond of. IMO, BC handily beats the socks off San Francisco as a place to live.
You’re right. Social Security does allow for disability. I should also point out that I erroneously stated the yearly cap on Social Security taxation to be around 65-70K; it is actually 90K.
I’m going to the gym now. Not because I enjoy working out, though. I’m going purely for potential financial gain arising from physical fitness and consequent longevity. I’ll outlive you all!
